Canon 60D on order - now some lenses

R

rich_r

Active member
I will use the 60D about 50/50 for photo/video.

I know this has been beat to death, but...

I know someone is going to suggest some vintage glass, but for now having a set of fully functioning lenses seems like the best starter set. The vintage glass will come later.:laugh:

For a walk around lens I want a fairly fast zoom. The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is more than I want to spend. So I have narrowed down to either the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 SP XR Di VC or the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD. The Tamron has a $100 rebate so it's cheaper (around $550 after rebate). The Tamron seems quite popular and it seems to be loved or hated (I see a lot of hate and that has me a bit concerned). The Sigma does not seem to be as popular, but reviews seem to indicate that it's sharper than the Tamron. Both lenses have a very short focus 40 degress on the Tamron and 30 degrees (so manual focus on the Sigma will be likely be even worse than the Tamron). Does anyone here have any experience with the Sigma?

I want a longer zoom (mostly for outside). To keep costs down for now I am thinking the Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS. Yes it's slow, but it should be ok for outside.

Finally one fast prime. I am thinking the Canon 50mm f1.4, but on a crop sensor the Sigma 30mm f1.4 might be a better choice?
 
Vintage glass is a good answer for people who want to do video only. I would NEVER suggest vintage glass for still shooters unless they have a background in older film SLRs. Those folks are few and far between these days.

I find that unless I am going to be shooting at night, fast lenses are a PITA during the day. They are big and heavy, and demand either ND or crazy fast shutter speeds. It's not like these cameras have an ISO 25 setting.

As much as I hate to say this, what makes an AF lens good for stills almost necessarily makes it awful for video. I think you'd be much better served trying not to mix the two uses.

The primes are a lot easier, but hard to offer a suggestion when you aren't giving any clue what you're going to be shooting. A prime for urban landscapes or cityscapes is vERY different from a prime for portraiture.
 
PerroneFord said:
I find that unless I am going to be shooting at night, fast lenses are a PITA during the day. They are big and heavy, and demand either ND or crazy fast shutter speeds. It's not like these cameras have an ISO 25 setting.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say, but am not sure I understand this point. While faster lenses are bigger and heavier, having a faster maximum aperture doesn't make a difference as to what NDs or shutter speed you chose in bright daylight - that is strictly based on your taking aperture.

A 300mm f/2.8 stopped down to f/22 lets in the same amount of light as a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 stopped down to f/22 (while zoomed to 300mm). If you need NDs for the f/2.8, you need them for the zoom too. Or are you trying to say that the slower lens would have a smaller minimum aperture and could reduce the need for NDs that way?

Of course the correct answer to this question is why the heck are you shooting in bright daylight anyways;)
 
Yea, that point wasn't very clear. I guess what I was saying was that in order to use what you had paid all that money for, you had to carry around this monstrosity of a lens. And if you were buying it for the large aperture, you'd need to do ND it and/or use fast shutter speeds.

I just don't eee the need to spend a boatload on a fast lens for a walk-around unless you're going to be shooting at night.
 
rich_r said:
For a walk around lens I want a fairly fast zoom. The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is more than I want to spend. So I have narrowed down to either the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 SP XR Di VC
Click to expand...

Unless you plan to add a FF 5D, and need IS, either of these lenses are a good pick for one lens to live on the camera. Vintage is great, but the auto features are too.
The speed of a 2.8 is really important even during the day I'm finding, not just at night. If you go in the shadows or interior with limited natural light you'll want the extra speed, or find yourself at 1600 or above very quickly with anything slower that 2.8.
The Canon is double the price, but worth it if you have the cash. The Tamron has sharpness and manufacturing issue that you should examine before buying.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=210332

For me the Canon 16-35 2.8 is the lens I want to live with full time for speed and FF, I'll have to go without IS of course, but it's a personal choice for sure.
 
Last edited:
ROCKMORE said:
The Canon is double the price, but worth it if you have the cash. The Tamron has sharpness and manufacturing issue that you should examine before buying.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=210332
Click to expand...

That's one of the posts that I read that has me concerned about the Tamron. The Sigma seems to have no presence here, yet it is equivalent and this review is very favorable: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os

Any thoughts on the Canon 50mm f/1.4 versus the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. They both seem to be well thought of, but if you were only going to get one?
 
I think if you want to approximate the field of view your eye has (in other words, a normal lens), then you should get the Sigma 30mm 1.4. If you want something more like a telephoto lens, then get the Canon 50mm 1.4.
 
if you ever want to upgrade to full frame (2011 to the 5d III maybe) it could be wise to not only invest into lenses for crop factor. this would speak for the 50 1.4. like chris said already... it's gonna be tele though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top